The Vault – Carol Altmann 

What began as a simple question to the Warrnambool City Council about the removal of some trees has gone on to reveal a much deeper concern that strikes right at the heart of the public’s right to know.

The last 24 hours has confirmed that there is now a two-tier system in place: those people and media organisations who meet the council’s approval and those who don’t. Those who acquiesce will be accommodated and those who dare to dig deeper or question further will be ignored.

In a one-newspaper, regional city with close ties and connections, this is a deeply troubling attack on one of the fundamental parts of a democracy where people have a right to expect an open, transparent and accountable government on all levels. The media, including new media outlets like Bluestone Magazine, are critical to this expectation being met.

First, some brief background for those of you who may not be on Facebook or Twitter, which is where Bluestone revealed the removal of a row of well-established tea-tree from Pertobe Rd this week.

In the scheme of things this might be seen as a small story, but more than 6500 people saw our post and many reacted passionately, asking why the trees had been taken out and that they were saddened, disappointed and even horrified at the loss of this native vegetation.

The WCC issued a tweet to its followers after Bluestone had made public that the trees had been removed, saying: “Old tea trees removed along Pertobe Rd for safety following inspection by arborist. Replacements to be planted in autumn.”

Safety? Inspection by an arborist? We wanted to know more.

We emailed WCC communications officer Nick Higgins, Mayor Kylie Gaston and all the councillors to see if we could find out more detail.

Cr Brian Kelson said he was unaware of the removal of the trees, but questioned why the council’s guideline of only removing one-third of the height had not be applied. (note: an earlier version of this story said only Cr Gaston responded to our questions. Cr Kelson also responded.)

Mayor Gaston also responded and the relevant part of her email is here:

Leaving the death of the child in Bendigo to one side for a moment (we will get back to that tragedy), we than asked to see the arborist’s report that led to such a dramatic response for a row of worm-infected tea tree.

Mayor Gaston was on the road by this time, so we emailed media manager Mr Higgins yesterday – as is council protocol – and asked directly:

Three hours later, having obviously scoured our Facebook page to gauge public feedback on this issue, we received this reply at 5.26pm yesterday:

Hello Carol,

We will decline the invitation to have further input into your commentary.

Comments on your Facebook page which describe council staff as “environmental rapists” and “grubs” are offensive.

Actually, what was said on the page was this:

And this:

Passionate, yes. But no individual WCC staff member was named and certainly not defamed.

While we closely monitor our Facebook page to remove potentially defamatory comments and offensive language, we also believe members of the public who are prepared to express an opinion (however passionately) under their real names is what a free and robust discussion is all about.

We also find the council’s refusal to comment to us on this basis particularly interesting given a senior member of its own staff, tourism manager Peter Abbott, was this year exposed for attacking some councillors under a pseudonym to the local newspaper.

Here is our response to Mr Higgins:

Hello Nick,
It is not an invitation, but a request for information that should be in the public domain, given it was stated as the reason for the removal of the trees.
Just to be clear, are you saying the WCC is with holding this information because of a comment/s by a third party – under their own name/s – on our Facebook page that does not in any way attack an individual but perhaps, instead, expresses the clear frustration and disappointment at the decision to remove this vegetation?
Strong words, certainly, but we believe in allowing people who are brave enough to have a say publicly, under their own name, to actually have a say.
I wish to point out that Bluestone Magazine has made no such comments and has instead raised an issue that was brought to our attention by readers wanting to know why and how the decision was made to remove the tea tree. We also pondered why the council had not chosen to make this information public before the trees were removed, as is recommended in its own tree removal policy.
Despite this, you are saying that this information will not be supplied.
I can only ponder if the same restrictions applied to the Warrnambool Standard when, until recently, it regularly permitted such criticism and attacks on both council and councillors not only on social media, but on its website, including – as you know – comments written by WCC senior staff under pseudonyms.
If this is the chief executive’s ruling, then we will be lodging an FOI for this information, as is becoming the way that the council demands we do business when seeking documents that should and could be in the public domain.
Regards,
Carol

And Mr Higgins’ reply?

I am out of the office from 22/12/2015 05:15 PM until 11/01/2016 08:30 PM.
Hello,
I am on leave from December 23, returning January 11, 2016. If the matter is urgent call 0466 199 511.

We are still waiting for the arborist’s report, if in fact one exists. We are, pardon the pun, going out on a limb to say that it doesn’t.

But this is about more than trees.

This is also, in our view, about the council trying to shut down public criticism and scrutiny by scraping social media, and it’s about an attempt to “choke” an organisation like ours that cannot be “media managed”.

You, our followers, will know that this is not the first time. We have still not received answers to our questions on the Porter’s shed, or a copy of the report on the results of the 2015 Fun4Kids festival, or whether, indeed, if all of the missing Loch Ard lead ingots have ever been recovered.

But we will keep asking.

[box]The death of a child from a falling tree limb in Bendigo in 2013 led to a coronial inquiry where the council was found not liable. The tree, in that tragic case, was a 90 year old Grey Box gum and the branch that broke was an 18m long limb that dropped from 4 to 6 metres. The coroner set down eight recommendations about council tree management, including installing a computer based management system detailing what trees it owns, a risk assessment and maintenance schedule; a formalised tree inspection protocol; that all assessments be done by an experienced arborist; and that the assessments include the root system and canopy. There is no suggestion that all damaged trees be removed, but that pruning may also be an option. You can read the full report here. You can also read the WCC tree policy here.[/box]

Meanwhile, on the subject of public liability, click here to see a case that actually is just waiting to happen within the Warrnambool CBD.

[author] [author_image timthumb=’on’]http://the-terrier.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/vault3.jpg[/author_image]Welcome to The Vault – this is where Bluestone will place all sorts of subscriber-access-only material. If you have something you would like to submit, please email us at editor@bluestonemagazine.com.au[author_info][/author_info] [/author]

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”]F[/dropcap]ears of public liability was given as one reason for the Warrnambool City Council’s decision to chainsaw out a row of old tea tree from Pertobe Road. (See the story here).

Meanwhile, the roots of these two plane trees have lifted up sections of pavement in the Timor St council carpark, opposite the permit parking for the Archie Graham seniors’ centre and heading toward the walkway for Heatherlie Homes for the aged.

These sections of walkway, as of yesterday, remained open and unmarked.

There is an old saying in journalism that you should always follow the money and that is exactly what we have done with the ongoing saga of the Warrnambool City Council’s purchase of the old Porter’s shed and it has led to an intriguing twist.

As those who have been following this story already know, the council paid local developer (and former councillor) Graeme Rodger $40,000 for the shed that sits on the edge of his new residential land project on Wangoom Rd, but shortly after tried to get rid of it via auction.

Unfortunately for the council, auctioneer Brian Hancock couldn’t attract a single bid and the shed was passed in at $20,000.

One reason for the shed’s unpopularity among bidders was the cost of dismantling, relocating, repairing and rebuilding the old shed at a new location, as the council is now discovering, and why it tried to “move it along” without success.

More recently, we have since learned, the council was told by Mr Rodger’s lawyers that the shed had to go: it was supposed to have been moved by mid this year, and each month that has passed since has been a blight on Mr Rodger’s land sales, after all, who wants to buy a block with a derelict shed next door?

In our last piece on this saga, we told you that the council had received a quote of $170,000 to move, relocate and reassemble the shed, making the $40,000 shed now costed at $210,000.

We also told you that the council rejected this quote and instead decided to pay Mr Rodger another $63,000 to dismantle and relocate (but not re-assemble) the shed, but that’s not the full story and herein lies the twist.

Mr Rodger is being paid $63,000, but, as the council is fully aware because it organised the arrangement, he is passing that money on to a third party to actually do the dismantling and relocating.

Why would the WCC want to use Mr Rodger as a go-between and not pay the third party itself?

We have pondered this question long and hard and the only possible solution we can come up with is that it is tied up with the council’s procurement policy, in other words, the rules around how it spends money.

These rules are quite complex, but include that any spending on services between $15,000 and $74,999 requires at least three written quotes. Perhaps by paying Mr Rodger for the cost of the shed AND its removal, the council could avoid this step and get the shed off the land by the new, mid-January deadline.

Also, under the rules, a council director can only authorise spending of up to $149,000 and anything above that must go to tender.

Director of Infrastructure Peter Robertson has so far spent $100,000 on the shed, but there are still major costs yet to come and that is the reassembly, re-fit and any repair costs for the corrosion. (See images below)

This is almost certain to exceed $40,000, which begs the question of whether this whole mess should have gone to public tender in the first place?

Unfortunately the council’s media manager Nick Higgins is refusing to answer any of our questions on the shed, but it is indicative of a number of things, not least the secrecy surrounding these dealings and the lack of transparency around the use of ratepayers’ money.

Only three councillors – Brian Kelson, Peter Hulin and Peter Sycopoulis – have raised questions about this shed within council and tried to unravel what went wrong.

And where is this shed headed? Here comes the final twist:

The shed is off to the council depot in Scott St where it will – alongside a brand new shed – partly replace the massive storage shed sold to Midfield Meats as part of the controversial land deal to allow the building of its milk processing plant.

That deal was supposed to give the council a $290,000 profit to invest back into the shrunken depot, but it appears that Porter’s shed alone will now soak up most of that “windfall”.

The Vault – Carol Altmann

The $63,000 relocation of the former Porter’s shed – sold to the Warrnambool City Council by developer and former councillor Graeme Rodger for $40,000 – has begun.

A Bluestone subscriber tipped us off this afternoon that the deconstruction of the Wangoom Rd shed had begun, but we are yet to learn exactly where it is being moved to and for what purpose.

It is also not yet known how much it will cost to reassemble the shed, which the council attempted to auction shortly after the council purchased it early last year, but the auction failed to attract a bid and the shed was passed in for half what the council paid for it – $20,000.

The shed was bought on behalf of the council by its director of City Infrastructure, Peter Robertson, who by way of his position has the authority to make purchases up to $149,999 under the council’s procurement policy.

The ultimate cost of the shed, however, is expected to be far more than that.

In addition to the $103,000 that will be paid to Mr Rodger for the shed and its relocation, there are the reassembly and fit-out costs including insulation, electricity, water etc.

As it happens, we posed a series of questions about these very issues to the council’s media spokesman Nick Higgins on Tuesday (Dec 8).

The questions include:

1. Where is the shed being relocated to and for what purpose?
2. How much will the council spend on reassembling the shed at this new site?
3. Will the council be reassembling the shed on a concrete slab and, if so, how much will this slab cost? If not, what will the shed be reassembled on?
4. What is the estimated cost of the complete refit for the shed upon its relocation, including insulation, power, water, toilets etc as required?
5. Did the council compare the cost of purchasing, disassembling, relocating and reassembling Porter’s shed with the cost of building a new shed and, if so, what was the difference?

We are yet to hear back from Mr Higgins on this ongoing saga, but you will be the first to know when we do.

(And we know the council – while not a subscriber to Bluestone – is reading stories in The Vault via access to someone’s password, so if you are reading this one, Mr Higgins, I am hoping we can have those answers soon to pass on to our subscribers.)

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #5C747D;”] P [/dropcap]rominent Warrnambool lawyer James Tait has lodged fresh plans to Warrnambool City Council to subdivide one of the most prominent pieces of vacant land in the city on the corner of Pertobe Road and Stanley St, South Warrnambool, overlooking the Merri River.

Mr Tait, via his company NFM Nominees, is intending to subdivide the .73 ha lot into eight – yes, eight – blocks sized between 512sq/m and 692 sq/m, with a cul-de-sac up the centre.

[box]YOU CAN VIEW/DOWNLOAD THE LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN HERE AND THE FULL APPLICATION HERE (each file is a pdf about 3mb)[/box]

It is the second time Mr Tait has attempted to gain planning approval for what is almost certain to be a subdivision that generates a lot of discussion, especially among those who would prefer to see this rare slice of vacant river land remain just that, vacant, or at least with less blocks.

The .73ha site would include .12ha set aside as a conservation reserve, with a 1.2m cyclone fence to be built to keep out the public (and presumably those who will eventually live in the eight dwellings to be later built on site). A further 1000 sq/m of flood prone land on the southern side will be donated to the council as a reserve.

Any houses, by the way, will be subject to separate planning approvals. The application now before council is purely for the subdivision.

“…(this) is considered to represent an excellent subdivision outcome for this land and surroundings,” is how it was described in a letter to council by Brendan Howard, a former council planner, now from Urbanomics, who has prepared the application for NFM Nominees. (*note, an earlier version of this piece incorrectly attributed this quote to WCC planner Kirsty Miller. We apologise for that error).

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #5C747D;”] S [/dropcap]o what are the environmental implications of such a subdivision on a prime coastal site?

We aren’t experts, but according to the environmental assessment on behalf of NFM Nominees, the “near threatened” Latham’s Snipe has been spotted on the site and the adjacent estuarian wetland.

This is the same bird that eventually scaled right back the development of land next to the Powling St wetlands in Port Fairy, although it was found in much larger numbers at that site. (See our earlier story on that lengthy battle here.)

It is also an ideal environment for the critically endangered Orange Bellied Parrot, although the report does not say if any have been found there.

Overall, however, the environmental assessment concluded that the majority of the Stanley St land was covered in introduced vegetation, and only .106ha of native vegetation would need to be removed for the subdivision.

With the towering Lady Bay motel development diagonally across from this last remnant of vacant land, it appears the high-density development of this area of South Warrnambool is set to continue.

Submissions on the subdivision plan close on December 11.